A STUNNED Buriton father has been ordered to tear down his children's tree house, dig up the tennis court, and fill in the swimming pool after losing a bitter and costly planning battle. Keith Barnett estimates his fight, which ended in front of a government planning inspector in Petersfield last month, has already cost him £50,000. He said it would cost another £25,000 to demolish the family's tree house, tennis court and pool. Mr Barnett lost his fight because planning inspector Clive Whitehouse agreed with East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) that all three harmed the character of the countryside and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). But Mr Barnett claimed the biggest irony of the case was the fact that if he rebuilt the treehouse, pool and tennis court in a part of the garden where they did not incur the wrath of the council, they would be more on show to the public than there were now. The battle began when EHDC told Mr Barnett he should have sought planning permission for the developments at Miscombe Manor. When he applied for retrospective planning permission he was refused by the council, who said that the tennis court and swimming pool had been put up on agricultural land and caused "demonstrable harm" to the surrounding countryside. Planning officers later served enforcement notices on him, ordering him to pull on the developments down. At the public inquiry in Petersfield's Festival Hall last month, Mr Barnett's Queen's Counsel stressed that he had undertaken all the work believing it to be permitted development in his garden, which was lawful. He brought in a landscape expert, Lionel Fanshawe, who said the swimming pool and tennis court could not even be seen as they were horizontal structures, and that the treehouse was a positive interest to the AONB and the proposed South Downs National Park. But this week, Mr Barnett received the bombshell news that he had lost his planning appeal. He told The Herald that he had no intention of "riding roughshod over the planning process, adding: "I am absolutely stunned at the contents of the inspector's report. When I built the house, I always hoped to be able to put a pool, tennis court and treehouse in the garden for the children. "It never occurred to me that a small area so close to the house and in front of the stables – for which the council had already granted permission to build – was not classified as garden, with all the associated permitted development rights. But I checked with a planning consultant anyway whether further approval was needed, and I was told it wasn't necessary." Mr Barnett said it was "incredible" that the council would not call its own landscape expert to give evidence at the inquiry, because officers knew he had recommended the developments for approval and would not support the council's view. "What on earth is the purpose of employing a landscape expert if the advice given is ignored?" he asked. He told The Herald that the land had been used as a hop farm and that it was a "terrible mess" when he bought it as it was covered in dilapidated Nissen huts which were used to house seasonal hop pickers. "I did not encroach on the countryside in an area of outstanding natural beauty. I was using a patch of land which had previously been, what the council called 'degraded agricultural land'." He added: "I understand and totally agree with the need for tight planning control in areas of outstanding natural beauty, but what I did was surely preferable to a derelict site with buildings falling down and huge quantities of rubbish and old hop wire. "I made sure everything was done to the highest standard and well screened from view. It's not as though we've annexed great tracts of land with an Alton Towers-style theme park." "I don't understand the council's comment that these facilities constitute an unnatural surbanisation of the countryside. Does this mean that unless you have a house in the suburbs, you may not put in a pool?" Despite the fact that the legal battle has already cost Mr Barnett around £50,00, he said he believed the main issue was the attitude of the council. "It's the way this has been handled and the contradictory and subjective views within the council. "It's my two little girls who will be the losers. I haven't told them yet, but they're going to be completely devastated." Inspector Clive Whitehouse, issuing his decision this week, said he could see no reason to allow Mr Barnett any exemptions from the requirements of planning policies governing the extensions of gardens onto agricultural land. He said: "In my opinion, the garden extension incorporating the swimming pool and tennis court cannot be justified in policy terms as being necessary for any of the limited purposes for which a rural location is essential." He said he considered they had changed the countryside and made it "less rural". Although he felt the treehouse was well designed and built, Mr Whitehouse said: "In this instance it is seen in an essentially agricultural landscape, and it does seem to me to be a curious feature out of keeping with its surroundings. "This impression is emphasised by the large size of the structure, which in my view is out of scale with the host tree." Mr Barnett told The Herald he was now deciding whether to appeal to the High Court or move the developments.